1 / 27

DUAL STRATEGY ACTIVE LEARNING

DUAL STRATEGY ACTIVE LEARNING. presenter: Pinar Donmez 1 Joint work with Jaime G. Carbonell 1 & Paul N. Bennett 2 1 Language Technologies Institute, Carnegie Mellon University 2 Microsoft Research. learn a new model. label request. labeled data. Active Learning (Pool-based).

Thomas
Télécharger la présentation

DUAL STRATEGY ACTIVE LEARNING

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. DUAL STRATEGY ACTIVE LEARNING presenter: Pinar Donmez1 Joint work with Jaime G. Carbonell1 & Paul N. Bennett2 1 Language Technologies Institute, Carnegie Mellon University 2 Microsoft Research

  2. learn a new model label request labeled data Active Learning (Pool-based) Data Source unlabeled data Learning Mechanism User output Expert

  3. Two different trends on Active Learning • Uncertainty Sampling: • selects the example with the lowest certainty • i.e. closest to the boundary, maximum entropy,... • Density-based Sampling: • considers the underlying data distribution • selects representatives of large clusters • aims to cover the input space quickly • i.e. representative sampling, active learning using pre-clustering, etc.

  4. Goal of this Work • Find an active learning method that works well everywhere • Some work best when very few instances sampled (i.e. density-based sampling) • Some work best after substantial sampling (i.e. uncertainty sampling) • Combine the best of both worlds for superior performance

  5. Main Features of DUAL • DUAL • is dynamic rather than static • is context-sensitive • builds upon the work titled “Active Learning with Pre-Clustering”, (Nguyen & Smeulders, 2004) • proposes a mixture model of density and uncertainty • DUAL’s primary focus is to • outperform static strategies over a large operating range • improve learning for the later iterations rather than concentrating on the initial data labeling

  6. Related Work

  7. Active Learning with Pre-Clustering • We call it Density Weighed Uncertainty Sampling (DWUS in short). Why? • assumes a hidden clustering structure of the data • calculates the posterior P(y | x) as • x and y are conditionally independent given k since points in one cluster assumed to share the same label selection criterion [1] uncertainty score density score [2] [3]

  8. Outline of DWUS • Cluster the data using K-medoid algorithm to find the cluster centroids ck • Estimate P(k|x) by a standard EM procedure • Model P(y|k) as a logistic regression classifier • Estimate P(y|x) using • Select an unlabeled instance using Eq. 1 • Update the parameters of the logistic regression model (hence update P(y|k) ) • Repeat steps 3-5 until stopping criterion

  9. Notes on DWUS • Posterior class distribution: • P(y | k) is calculated via • P(k|x) is estimated using an EM procedure after the clustering • p(x | k) is a multivariate Gaussian with the same σ for all clusters • The logistic regression model to estimate parameters

  10. Motivation for DUAL • Strength of DWUS: • favors higher density samples close to the decision boundary • fast decrease in error • But! DWUS establishes diminishing returns! Why? • Early iterations -> many points are highly uncertain • Later iterations -> points with high uncertainty no longer in dense regions • DWUS wastes time picking instances with no direct effect on the error

  11. How does DUAL do better? • Runs DWUS until it estimates a cross-over • Monitor the change in expected error at each iteration to detect when it is stuck in local minima • DUAL uses a mixture model after the cross-over ( saturation ) point • Our goal should be to minimize the expected future error • If we knew the future error of Uncertainty Sampling (US) to be zero, then we’d force • But in practice, we do not know it

  12. More on DUAL • After cross-over, US does better => uncertainty score should be given more weight • should reflect how well US performs • can be calculated by the expected error of US on the unlabeled data* => • Finally, we have the following selection criterion for DUAL: * US is allowed to choose data only from among the already sampled instances, and is calculated on the remaining unlabeled set

  13. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 A simple Illustration I 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2

  14. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 A simple Illustration II 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2

  15. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 A simple Illustration III 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2

  16. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 A simple Illustration IV 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

  17. Experiments • initial training set size : 0.4% of the entire data ( n+ = n- ) • The results are averaged over 4 runs, each run takes 100 iterations • DUAL outperforms • DWUS with p<0.0001 significance* after 40th iteration • Representative Sampling (p<0.0001) on all • COMB (p<0.0001) on 4 datasets, and p<0.05 on Image and M-vs-N • US (p<0.001) on 5 datasets • DS (p<0.0001) on 5 datasets * All significance results are based on a 2-sided paired t-test on the classification error

  18. Results: DUAL vs DWUS

  19. Results: DUAL vs US

  20. Results: DUAL vs DS

  21. Results: DUAL vs COMB

  22. Results: DUAL vs Representative S.

  23. Failure Analysis • Current estimate of the cross-over point is not accurate on V-vs-Y dataset => simulate a better error estimator • Currently, DUAL only considers the performance of US. But, on Splice DS is better => modify selection criterion:

  24. Conclusion • DUAL robustly combines density and uncertainty (can be generalized to other active sampling methods which exhibit differential performance) • DUAL leads to more effective performance than individual strategies • DUAL shows the error of one method can be estimated using the data labeled by the other • DUAL can be applied to multi-class problems where the error is estimated either globally or at the class or the instance level

  25. Future Work • Generalize DUAL to estimate which method is currently dominant or use a relative success weight • Apply DUAL to more than two strategies to maximize the diversity of an ensemble • Investigate better techniques to estimate the future classification error

  26. THANK YOU!

  27. The error expectation for a given point: • Data density is estimated as a mixture of K Gaussians: • EM procedure to estimate P(K): • Likelihood:

More Related